It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


NEWS: State of Texas Seizes Child to Enforce Radiation Treatment

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 08:00 PM

Originally posted by TexasConspiracyNut
"We are relying heavily on medical experts," said CPS spokeswoman Mary Walker. "And based on what the medical experts are telling us, this would be in the best interest of that child."

I watched the news on this today and they told the story of a family in Utah who's son was diagnosed with cancer. The doctors said he had to have surgery right away and instead the family took him out of state for a second opinion.

The father was charged with kidnapping.

The kid got the second opinion and no cancer was found.

The charges were dropped.

Now, the parents in this situation said they wanted a second opinion. Their child was taken simply because they wanted to consult with a differant doctor. They should have had that right.

I believe that if a parent wants a second opinion considering their childs medical situation they should be allowed that. If the second opinion concurs with the first and the parents refuse, then the state should step in. Not before.

This is just MHO.


posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 08:16 PM

I think so, should we allow a fundamental muslim not to enroll his daughter in school because he feels it's his religious duty not to? What about Satanists? Should they be allowed to make their children attend dark sexually oriented rituals that may harm the child mentally because it's their freedom to do so?

Unfortunately..I think so, yes. It's not right, but it's the only feasible option, given our choices. We can choose to impose our view on everyone else, or we can simply promote our own views and hope they stick, through education, not legislation.

If, in time, the system is to change, it won't be because of parents arrested for 'abusing' their children, it will be from a steady decay of those ludicrous institutions most of us find so insane and distasteful. Myself and a few other people don't like the fact that relgions continue to exert their corrupting influence, but short of outlawing religion, how are we to possibly change the reality we're facing?

The same goes for parents who allow their children to be eaten alive by disease.

What about spontaneous remission? What about the power of prayer? It's been proven yaknow. What about the right to die with dignity? These are all aspects of this case overlooked in the fervor of our instinct to protect children from harm.

In my mind, the parents retain the ability to define harm, and they retain the right to protect their child from it wherever they perceive it. If they think television harms their kids, they should have the power to turn it off. Some would say that's insane, that the parents are obviously just relgious wackos, but I disagree.

I know it's a big difference, I'm just trying to make a point about the perception of harm, and how it varies drastically from person to person. I perceive radiation as more harmful that cancer in many cases, it all depends on the inteligence and integrity of the doctor. I don't question the credentials of the physician, but neither am I comfortable questioning the parents loyalty to their child.

I think they deserve the benefit of the doubt, after all, it's their child we're talking about. Some parents are sick in the head, they don't perceive the world correctly. Often times children suffer and die because of the negligence or other failings of their parents. It's been that way since the beginning of time.

When the mother crocodile wanders off, the nest becomes vulnerable. Generation after generation, attentive mothers produce more viable offspring, and less attentive mothers produce fewer viable offspring. In that way, attentive mothers are advanced, evolutionarily speaking, while inattentive ones are harmed. The species is refined in this manner.

I'm not saying I like it, I'm just pointing out that it's a fact of life. Did you know Hawaiians used to crush the skulls of infants with a rock if the child bore a birthmark? I see this as a crime, very different than the case of these folks we're talking about. In this case, real harm can be seen coming from both choices, radiation or cancer. They made a choice.

I think we have to respect that, and we have to respect the brave little girl who spoke up for herself. Maybe she isn't old enough to know better, but maybe she is.

That's a tough call, but if the child is going to die without treatment and the parents refuse treatment based on religious beliefs, then no I absolutely don't.

First of all, we don't know the child will die without radiation. Secondly, we don't know the radiation won't kill her. Finally, the parents have said their objection has more to do with parental rights and medical concerns, rather than relgious beliefs based on unsubstantiated dogma.

I don't know if the parents are telling the truth, but I do know I share their concerns regarding the treatment.

I've never seen children handling the snakes, but if they were, then somebody should step in. Those people also drink strichnyne, should they allow their children to do that too? If there were non-religious parents knowingly letting their children drink deadly poison, everybody would be outraged, you know that.

It happens, I've seen video. I suppose it could have been staged, since it was Faces of Death, but I thought it looked real enough. Who knows though? In any case, anyone dumb enough to drink poison deserves what they get. Anyone dumb enough to feed poison to their children deserve to have their genetic legacy erased like so much gibberish on the chalkboard.

Pretty much all of us have had family members die of cancer, and many treatments carry the risk of side effects. I'm sorry to hear it didn't help your mother, but it has helped many others, and as of right now, radiation is many people's last hope.

Yeah, it's entirely too common. The underlying causes NEED to be adressed, and we MUST take more care in the diagnosis, in order to better understand each individual expression of the disease. It does help some people, granted. Probably it helps more people than it hurts. However, in the end, I don't feel it's my business to calculate risk and assign behaviors to people other than myself.

If I see someone beating their wife on the street, I'll stop them, because the behavior offends me. If I see someone beating their children, I'll teach them to pick on people their own size. I really believe this case is different than that. I don't think the parents are trying to hurt their child, I'm pretty sure they want what's best for her.

They disagree with the doctor about what's best, and that's a pretty common occurence around the world.

Now, in the end, I also believe it's the choice of the patient whether or not to receive any given treatment. In this case, it's the responsibility of the legal guardians, since this is a minor we're talking about. The legal guardians are supposed to be the parents, but the state of Texas has just thrown that assumption into question.

What Texas is essentially saying is that it has final say regarding medical treatment administered to people in the state. I think that's a gross misuse of child abuse laws, and a ridiculous leap of (probably) well intentioned logic. The state wants to be a nanny, and as much as I detest that fact, I can't do much to stop it.

Now, being a nanny is one thing..but being a parental authority is an entirely different story. Just ask yourself, do you want to raise your child, or do you want the state to do it for you?

If your answer is the former, we're in agreement, and you simply haven't considered the precedent this case sets. If your answer is the latter, I'd say you probably think you have better things to do, in which case you don't have the proper mindset to raise children.

This isn't a personal attack, please don't misunderstand. I just feel that people who can't be bothered to raise their own children shouldn't have had the kids in the first place. How many parents speak to their kids only to yell at them? How many use the TV/Computer as a babysitter? How many aren't around when the kid needs them? How many waste money on drugs and possessions and vacations while the child shivers in the cold, damp basement?

More than we'd like. We have laws for punishing those parents who care more about their own petty selfishness than they do about their kids. The state takes in crack baby after crack baby, and for good reason.

I don't think this girl should be treated like a crack baby. Her parents seem to love her very much, and are just trying to do what's best for her.

posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 08:31 PM
I agree with you 100% inasmuch that a person, (ANY PERSON), should get not only a second opinion, but IMO, a fifth opinion as well.

In this case you will find this family as a whole received many medical opinions. These opinions were not based upon hospitals trying to make a buck, but upon general opinions of doctors who are noted in their field.

There are people all over the world with cancer who would give anything to be under the care of one of these fine Houston doctors involved in this case.

We're not all hicks down here. We have some of the finest doctors in the world.

Like I said; This 12 year old will most likely die without proper treatment.

posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 08:39 PM

Originally posted by victor was right


[edit on 10-6-2005 by victor was right]

Well I guess then according to you; she should also be allowed to vote right?

posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 09:12 PM
I agree with my fellow Texan, Texas Conspiracy Nut.

There are numerous similar cases where the parents were allowed to deal with the child as their own religion dictated and where the child as a result died:

(etc, etc, etc)

While an adult can make their own decisions about treatment and fully understand the consequences, it's hard to say if a young teen/preteen can fully understand the ramifications. Yes, I know it depends on the teen. There are a few younger folks here that I would trust with such a decision, but there's a vast majority out there who don't have the background to understand what they're looking at if someone shows them an x-ray.

I've seen several cases on religious boards where someone took the prayer option with tragic consequences. We don't permit religious exceptions if a parent decides that the proper form of discipline is to beat a child with the handle of a hoe because we know this causes damages.

In a case like this one, where there's been multiple confirming independant diagnoses, it's bad for the child to pretend the cancer doesn't exist and to run away. I followed such a case where the parent took the advice of an osteopath and almost caused the child's death. By the time the child's condition deteriorated to the point where they took her to the emergency room, the parent had kind of wised up. Child is getting cancer treatments, but the cancer had grown in the time when the parents were in denial about the diagnosis (confirmed by several medical specialists, but denied by the osteopath.)

In cases like the above, I think the adults should be sued and prosecuted for the damage they cause the child.

However... I admit I'm not real tolerant about these things.

posted on Jun, 11 2005 @ 12:01 AM

Originally posted by marg6043
Welcome to the NWO of the USA, it seems that when it comes to Texas and Florida they are making the head line news lately more than any other state in the country.

This is another hint of things to come to a nearest neighborhood. Patriot act make permanent, state taking over your children.

Federal government telling you how to live and how to die, women internal organs to be regulated.

Its going to be a wonderful country indeed.

Except this has nothing to do with the Patriot act, which has nothing to do with parental rights.

posted on Jun, 11 2005 @ 12:45 AM

While an adult can make their own decisions about treatment and fully understand the consequences, it's hard to say if a young teen/preteen can fully understand the ramifications.

No offense intended, but I think that's an assertion that needs proof to back it up. I have known a lot of people in my short life, and I can say without a doubt that a large percentage of them were unable to understand the consequences of their actions. I can also say that a large percentage of them were not capable of reasonably protecting their own health.

These are adults we're talking about. But answer me this please, how many mature children have you met? How many immature adults? Are the approximate percentages of 'mature and immature' in the two groups similar? They are in my experience.

Yes, I know it depends on the teen.

Definitely. There are some real zombies in the ranks. Not entirely their fault, but that's not the point.

There are a few younger folks here that I would trust with such a decision, but there's a vast majority out there who don't have the background to understand what they're looking at if someone shows them an x-ray.

Again, I'd say the same thing of many adults.

I completely understand, and AGREE with the point made over and over again in this argument (every time it comes up) regarding the state's responsibility to protect the child from harm. If the state has to protect them from citizens, the state should have to protect them from parents, I understand.

Where it gets ugly is in trying to determine what constitutes harm. The Texas definition includes such vague language, that the law is very much open to interpretation when it comes to how it's used. That's why I scream precedent over and over again.

To go through the littany of what sort of damage this could do down the line would take ages, the possibilities are practically endless.

And finally, let's think about it this way. In every case, a final decision needs to be made. The decision may very well effect whether the child lives or dies. Now imagine your child is in a life or death situation, do you want to make the decision that could kill them, or do you want the state to make that decision for you?

The only responsible thing for a parent to do is make the call. If they believe the doctors or the pharmacist or the therapist or the nice man from the government handing out free shots, let them! It's a free country. If their children die, society will mourn their loss no less, and the weight of that death will lie squarely where it belongs - on the shoulders of the one who was responsible for the life of that child.

In understand protecting children, absolutely. But administering procedures and medications against the wishes of the parents, who are presumably motivated by a desire to protect their own children more pronounced because of their genetic similarity. (parents have a more vested interest in the survival of their offspring than anyone else. They serve themselves, and their programming, by keeping their children alive - because of genetics.)

That state has other concerns. The state is mainly concerned with keeping the state alive. Does that surprise anyone? The state cares about individuals, only to the extent it can survive without them. The state relates to individuals like unrelated individuals relate to each other. Survival programming mandates a guarded altruism designed to stimulate returns on emotional of physical investment (I hunt for you, you groom me.).

The state cannot be trusted to protect the lives of individuals when the lives of individuals are not necessary to the survival of the state. It's that simple, I think.

Does this sound correct to the people here? I think it's a perfectly reasonable argument for a more precise wording of the law governing the state's right to take risks with the lives of individuals. Whadya think? (sorry for the long posts, I've gotten really interested in this case, because as has been pointed out, this isn't the first time it's happened)

posted on Jun, 11 2005 @ 01:07 AM
I am from the Houston area, and have been following this case. Here is a link to a more recent article from the Houston Chronicle. The passages beneath, I only include because the subjects were brought up in previous posts.

But Friday's results, "changes everything," said Daniel Horne, an attorney for the parents.
"That fact is this latest development, as they say, changes everything," he told Judge Carl Lewis. "The Werneckes have never said that they would deny medical treatment to their daughter if she was ill and getting worse."

They found Katie with her mother at a family ranch and arrested the mother on charges of interfering with child custody.
Michele Wernecke was free on $50,000 bond. The siblings, three boys, were reunited with the parents Friday following a CPS inspection of the home.
CPS spokesman Darrell Azar said there had been "conditions at the house that concerned us."

I hope this helps answer any questions and I agree that either way you look at it this, it is a very sad and sometimes frightening case.

posted on Jun, 11 2005 @ 03:27 AM
Here's an update for those interested, along the same lines as the link above.

I don't think this really changes the argument over the core issue, but it is a new development.

posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 11:28 AM
Despite the fact that the parents are ready to administer the treatment ordered by the court, a judge has ruled that the young girl will remain a ward of the state.

I think this is a very bad idea. Anyone in child protective services can tell you, the last thing you want to do is remove a child from their parents, it does so much long term damage it's usually not worth it. The only time you would be in the right in removing a kid from their parents, is if the parents are abusive, or there is a dangerous environment in the home, like drugs or prostitution. Neither is the case here.

This girl has a family. They love her. She should be with them.

Simplistic? Yes. I don't think that makes it any less true.

posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 11:31 PM
Do to the parents playing doctor, the girl most likely wont have a long life. I consider that child abuse. IMO the parents dont deserve custody. If they would have let the doctors do their job to begin with then maybe the girls cancer would not have came back. It's the parents fault if she dies. They gave up their right to custody when they refused treatment.

posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 04:26 PM
Katie Werneckes story grows more tragic everyday.Foster care is doing whatever the cancer and the chemo could not do to kill Katie Wernecke.The home she is in has many sick and disabled children already in it. The rigorous and to be honest cruel treatment dictated by C.P.S. demands isolation.Even a small cold would be enough to kill Katie.The parents did not refuse cancer treatment.The parents wanted to seek opinions of doctors who were in no way connected to the doctor who demanded radiation.The parents have not been unreasonable.The Judge,the doctor and C.P.S. have been arrogant and cruell.

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in